2018 (6) TMI 1367 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Insufficiency of funds - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that - When there are prima facie materials against the present petitioner, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed especially when there is a clear cut statement in the complaint that the accused gave an assurance to the complainant to pay the balance amount of ₹ 3,58,87,500/- at the time of execution of the documents - The points raised by the petitioner/accused cannot be decided in this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Prima facie evidence against the accused
- Direction to complete trial within three months

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for a sum of ?25,00,000/- towards partial discharge of the balance sale consideration. The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint is not maintainable as the accused was merely a witness and the cheque was issued for purchasing other properties. However, the Court held that the question of whether the cheque was issued in discharge of debt is a matter of evidence to be decided during trial and cannot be determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Prima facie evidence against the accused:
The complaint revealed that the accused stood as a witness for the execution of property sale documents to M/s.Saravanan Estates Private Limited and issued a cheque for ?25,00,000/- as part payment. The Court noted that there were prima facie materials against the accused, emphasizing that such issues should be addressed during trial. The Court directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the order, allowing the accused to raise all relevant points during the trial proceedings.

3. Direction to complete trial within three months:
In the judgment, the Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition and ordered the Trial Court to conclude the trial within three months, ensuring that the observations made by the High Court do not influence the trial proceedings. This direction aimed to expedite the legal process and provide a timely resolution to the case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could present all arguments and defenses during the trial, underscoring the importance of resolving the matter through the due process of law.

In conclusion, the High Court addressed the issues of maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the existence of prima facie evidence against the accused, and the directive to complete the trial within three months. The judgment highlighted the significance of resolving factual disputes during trial proceedings and underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures for a fair and timely resolution of the case.